Public Education Funding: Property Taxes vs Equal Distribution

[DoggyDaddy]

Judge S Hugh Dillion ordered the bussing of poor inner city kids to my school in the 70s.
It did not increase my quality of
education to say the least.

Same here. But it really didn't ramp up until after I graduated in 78.

 

[HoughMade]

Not every student in poor school districts is a bad student, and probably would be better students if they had better teachers and better resources. Like I said, not all, not most, but many. I'd like to see as many of those be able to break the cycle as possible.

Obviously that's true...it also doesn't mean they would be better students elsewhere ​if everthing else in their life stays the same.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

I believe the family is the foundation of any society, but I guess the big picture question is how to combat people stacking up at the bottom while maintaining free markets?

 

[NKBJ]

Government should not be in the education business.
The downside far outweighs the good.
.

 

[Tombs]

I'm kinda torn on how to fund schools. I think it's a problem that poor school districts under-fund schools, and then under educate kids, and then they grow up to be poor adults, and then they send their kids to the same ****ty schools they went to, and the cycle continues. I'd like to see the education system become more consistent across school districts. I lived in Missippi for 8 years and I'll tell you their public schools are ****. They're one of the poorest states in the nation and they have one of the worst public school systems. It's not the kids fault that they have ****ty schools. They don't have a lot of choice but to grow up under-educated.

That sounds like something that really needs fixed. But how do you fix that? As you move the financial responsibility up the government levels, you cede more control over what your kids are taught to those higher levels. Do we want those decisions left to federal, state, or local governments? There's something to be said for nationwide consistency, but then that comes at the expense of local sensibilities. I think it's a hard problem to solve.

The problem isn't money, in these poor areas.
Have a read from a teacher who worked in multiple poor areas, and recounts his stories about his experiences.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueOffMyC...i_used_to_teach_in_a_black_inner_city_school/
Warning: Reality may upset the easily offended.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Government should not be in the education business.
The downside far outweighs the good.

I don’t disagree with the sentiment but that would only stack up more people at the bottom, which isn’t good for anybody.

 

[indykid]

I am sure this has been said earlier in this thread, but one more:

The "American Dream" used to mean home ownership, but if you have to pay property tax, you don't own your home, you just rent it from the county. Also trying to figure out why my 91 year old mother has to pay property taxes for a school she never used and never had a child use? Fees for police and fire protection ok, but after a while taxing people for owning property is in my not so humble opinion, unAmerican.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I am sure this has been said earlier in this thread, but one more:

The "American Dream" used to mean home ownership, but if you have to pay property tax, you don't own your home, you just rent it from the county. Also trying to figure out why my 91 year old mother has to pay property taxes for a school she never used and never had a child use? Fees for police and fire protection ok, but after a while taxing people for owning property is in my not so humble opinion, unAmerican.

I've made that argument before (I don't have kids, so why do I need to support schools) but I have kind of come around to the idea that it does (in theory) improve society overall if kids are educated. Key point being "in theory".

 

[Tombs]

I've made that argument before (I don't have kids, so why do I need to support schools) but I have kind of come around to the idea that it does (in theory) improve society overall if kids are educated. Key point being "in theory".

It should be optional.

Allow people to donate to their local schools if they want to fund education.
Let the chips fall where they may instead of trying to decide how your neighbor needs to live his life. A concept too many Americans have forgotten.

 

[indyartisan]

The problem isn't money, in these poor areas.
Have a read from a teacher who worked in multiple poor areas, and recounts his stories about his experiences.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueOffMyC...i_used_to_teach_in_a_black_inner_city_school/
Warning: Reality may upset the easily offended.

I could write a similar story from my prospective as a student.

 

[indyartisan]

I am sure this has been said earlier in this thread, but one more:

The "American Dream" used to mean home ownership, but if you have to pay property tax, you don't own your home, you just rent it from the county. Also trying to figure out why my 91 year old mother has to pay property taxes for a school she never used and never had a child use? Fees for police and fire protection ok, but after a while taxing people for owning property is in my not so humble opinion, unAmerican.

If your mother’s home is assessed at less than (200,000?) she should qualify for the property tax circuit breaker which relieves her of the tax burden.
Oddly enough they do not apply this automatically, she will have to ask for it.

 

[NKBJ]

I don’t disagree with the sentiment but that would only stack up more people at the bottom, which isn’t good for anybody.

Never mind the sentiment.
The facts are that you have to take indoctrination out of governments hands.
Whatever you may think education is, you have to admit that it is the forming of the minds of the next generation.
Do you want that controlled by THEM? (shudder like a dog s@@@ting a peach seed)

Heh, but we're witnessing the results of that control being in effect.
Do we want some more? On steroids? I'm afraid it's on the way.

Now, as regards stacking up people at the bottom, you're not going to stop that. God said so.
So are we going to go for elevating those who will lead us to greatness or go with consigning us all to universal conformity and slavery?
OK, that's really a loaded question because we already know what's coming; slavery except probably you refuse at the cost of your life. Individually do we live that long? We'll see how this plays out.

 

[Nevermore]

Personally I don't see direct correlation between money invested and outcomes produced when it comes to education. Home educators generally spend far less than either private or public schools. I've seen numbers quoted as being between $500 to $3,000 per student per year Nationally for homeschooling, but could not find official stats from a .gov agency that tracks such things. By comparison, Indiana paid about $10,045 per student as a whole in 2017, per this article. Illinois with its marvelous Chicago Public School System spends $14,180 per student and the results are, uh, hilarious. And that doesn't even get into the fact that about half of those expenses are usually wasted on buildings and the like which are largely irrelevant to actual education.

In my view, the essentials of education require exactly 0 football stadiums, pools, science laboratories, and workshops. Generally speaking, the basics of reading, English, and mathematics up to basic multiplication and division require maybe half a day's worth of time each schoolday for a group of children to learn everything we usually teach them up to about grades 5-6. This gives the child sufficient skills to work at a Wal-Mart or Mcdonald's (heck if we can toss in a manners course it would actually be an improvement!) and fulfills our "need" as a public to school children and provide them a means to care for themselves. At that point, assuming a transition period from our current total public system of course, we would then encourage the development of training academies, apprenticeships, entreprenurial encouragement/training, and other forms of private, focused education which is intended to zero-in on the paying student and develop them according to their (and naturally their parents) wishes for the future. Let a private facility build a state-of-the-art science lab for the future NASA employees and let the children interested in that line of work be able to learn in an environment that is designed to foster their ambitions rather than having them waste their time analyzing The Old Man and the Sea. Let the kid ready for the NFL by 15 learn finance, investing, and brand management in between rounds of high quality coaching to prepare him for the common pitfalls of that life.

I'm fully aware that that will never be allowed to happen as public education is easily one of the most useful statist concepts ever invented for managing a populace and no political party will ever want to weaken it, but there it is. Nothing in my research into education suggests that sticking with our current models on educating a child make sense, either in terms of output or the costs involved.

 

[indykid]

If your mother’s home is assessed at less than (200,000?) she should qualify for the property tax circuit breaker which relieves her of the tax burden.
Oddly enough they do not apply this automatically, she will have to ask for it.

Thanks. I did look into that but her house is assessed at over $200,000. I also asked the "tax person" about the over 65 deduction and found out that too has a "property must be under" value so neither of us qualify.

 

[jamil]

Obviously that's true...it also doesn't mean they would be better students elsewhere ​if everthing else in their life stays the same.

Every advantage helps. For one thing, having straight A’s in a more academically rigorous school could mean the difference in opportunities later. For better scholarships, more college options. Not to mention, often a better selection of classes during high school.

 

[JettaKnight]

I believe the family is the foundation of any society, but I guess the big picture question is how to combat people stacking up at the bottom while maintaining free markets?

BIGOT!!!

Government should not be in the education business.
The downside far outweighs the good.

Are you saying there shouldn't be publicly funded schools, or dictates from Indianapolis and DC as to how they operate?



I'll just say this about homeschooling: I'm so glad I didn't have to learn advanced chemistry, math, etc. from my mom.

Homeschooling is a great solution when you have willing parents with time available and students willing to learn. One pastor I listen to has three kids; one is homeschooled. He decided a single solution wasn't the best for all kids.

 

[JettaKnight]

Personally I don't see direct correlation between money invested and outcomes produced when it comes to education. Home educators generally spend far less than either private or public schools. I've seen numbers quoted as being between $500 to $3,000 per student per year Nationally for homeschooling, but could not find official stats from a .gov agency that tracks such things. By comparison, Indiana paid about $10,045 per student as a whole in 2017, per this article. Illinois with its marvelous Chicago Public School System spends $14,180 per student and the results are, uh, hilarious. And that doesn't even get into the fact that about half of those expenses are usually wasted on buildings and the like which are largely irrelevant to actual education.

Homeschooling cost less?! Who would have thought.

In my view, the essentials of education require exactly 0 football stadiums, pools, science laboratories, and workshops. Generally speaking, the basics of reading, English, and mathematics up to basic multiplication and division require maybe half a day's worth of time each schoolday for a group of children to learn everything we usually teach them up to about grades 5-6. This gives the child sufficient skills to work at a Wal-Mart or Mcdonald's (heck if we can toss in a manners course it would actually be an improvement!) and fulfills our "need" as a public to school children and provide them a means to care for themselves. At that point, assuming a transition period from our current total public system of course, we would then encourage the development of training academies, apprenticeships, entreprenurial encouragement/training, and other forms of private, focused education which is intended to zero-in on the paying student and develop them according to their (and naturally their parents) wishes for the future. Let a private facility build a state-of-the-art science lab for the future NASA employees and let the children interested in that line of work be able to learn in an environment that is designed to foster their ambitions rather than having them waste their time analyzing The Old Man and the Sea. Let the kid ready for the NFL by 15 learn finance, investing, and brand management in between rounds of high quality coaching to prepare him for the common pitfalls of that life.

Kids need to learn more than the 3R's - they need to learn how to work with others (i.e. extra-circular activities & sports), they need to actually see things in motion and touch, and do (labs), they need to be well rounded, because even in college there's a ton that have no idea what career is right for them. You're solution is vague like Huxley's - split them into alphas and beta and gammas.

I'm fully aware that that will never be allowed to happen as public education is easily one of the most useful statist concepts ever invented for managing a populace and no political party will ever want to weaken it, but there it is. Nothing in my research into education suggests that sticking with our current models on educating a child make sense, either in terms of output or the costs involved.

I probably should have read this first - then I wouldn't have taken it as seriously.


It's interesting that more complicated and vast the problem is, the more certain some people are they know the one solution that will fix it all.


I will say this, it seems that a lot of the problems (e.g. why America is bad at math), stems from dictates set up by bureaucrats who don't know anything about teaching or what students need to know.

No one tells Actaeon how to make steel, but a teacher...

 

[Twangbanger]

Property tax for schools is like Capitalism, it's the worst system ever devised - except for all the others.

I get more value for, and control over, my taxes generated and spent locally than anything else that gets taken out of my check. If I don't like how it's being spent, I can vote the levy down. For example, people in Franklin Township (Indy) some years ago got pissed about the spending there, and did exactly that. It's not a bad school. It just spends a lot. Million dollar football locker rooms and **** like that. There was accountability. They had to tighten the belt immediately. Where else in our system of taxation do you get such immediate smack-down for bad decisions?

This conversation started out about how to divide things more equitably. My liberal teacher acquaintances think education funding should all just come from the highest possible level of government, via income tax. Things like national defense get funded like that. Do you feel like you have any control over that? Do you want to extend that system to how your children are educated? In my experience, when Ed. types complain about property tax funding, it's mostly because they don't like the uncertainty of having to face levies. It's not all about you. You aren't the only profession that has to face some uncertainty in life.

I'm really afraid this is one of those "you're screwed" type situations. People are a sucker for the belief that everybody should start out equal in life, as much as possible. That is, simply, hogwash. It can't be done, on any really general level, and all attempts seem to fail and/or make things worse. I don't like structural inequality more than anyone else, but how do you really fix it?

Chin refugees value education highly. They're as poor as church mice, but they've found a way around their situation. They've bombed themselves into Perry Township (Indy) like a m'f'er. They do not choose to live in crummy-school areas like other immigrant groups. They understand there are bad school areas, and they take personal action to not fall into that trap. I'm not saying I like paying for it, but they've figured the system out, it's legal, and they take action to help themselves. And they end up being some of the best students we have.

Children end up to some degree being a function of their parents' choices. That sucks but that is life. I'm not sure I can name any really large-scale system for forcibly changing that, which doesn't make things worse as a result.

And to the Education proponents, as will be pointed out by teachers when discussing standardized testing, outcomes have mostly to do with family support. Good support system, good student. Money doesn't change that. So I agree with teachers that they shouldn't be personally high-staked into the ****house just because of test scores, but by the same token, more money doesn't fix everything either. If "family is crucial" when explaining test scores - then you can't have it both ways, and turn around and discount the role of family and say more money will fix it, when politically shilling for more "equal" ways of doing away with property tax funding (basically shifting to income tax, because in America, that's pretty much what every state that goes down this road ends up doing).

 

[STAGE 2]

Mother was a teacher. Mother in law is a teacher. Wife was a teacher. Couple of truths. 1. There is a point on the curve where the amount of money per student no longer increases results. Consequently the vast majority of failing schools are not doing so because of a lack of money. 2. Over the last 30 years there has been a transition from the expectation that parents would be active participants in their kids educational lives in conjunction with the school to the phenomenon we have today which is “its your job to teach my kid”. 3. No amount of money or idealistic teachers can overcome a lousy home environment.

I don’t like property tax. It means true property ownership no longer exists. However since no one is likely to elect me king for a day we are stuck with it. As a result I think that the majority of the funds paid should stay within the district. Anything else creates an incentive for mediocrity since as with any redistribution it has been given and not earned.

If you want to improve the performance of underperforming schools then work on fixing single parent homes, abuse and crime in the surrounding neighborhood.

 

[PistolBob]

Personal property taxes on our primary residence is nothing but theft. When the king can kick you out of your home for not being able to pay a tax, it's not your home....it's the kings.